This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

The actual point seems to have gone miles over your head. I do not make it a practice to single out folks and call them names like "parasites". My post was to point out to those who most often do that if one defines the term "parasite" as one who lives off the earnings of others and did not work for it themselves, then their sacred cow of the wealthy who inherit from Mumsy and Daddykins are among the parasite crowd.

They got that money from their folks. They didn't take it out of my pocket. Therein lies the difference.

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

That isn't remotely true. Moreover, raising revenues doesn't mean those obligations will be met when the politicians look at new revenues as a source of funding for more spending.

The premise of your argument (the bold) is based on a heroic assumption that any new revenues will go directly to spending for new programs; your speculation is simply biased and fails to take the macroeconomic perspective into consideration.

We do know that short term growth outlooks are sluggish at best, and that current revenue as a % of GDP is near its historic low. Cutting spending during this stage of the game will surely lead to a severe loss of GDP thereby exacerbating the deficit/debt. Whether you like it or not, taxes will need to be increased AND spending will need to be decreased (but only when the private sector is capable of driving growth). By all indications e.g. financial position of corporate America and the current rate of unemployment, now is not the time....

Last edited by Kushinator; 11-05-11 at 08:56 PM.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

that's complete BS-just about everyone can pay something and if they cannot, they sure as hell shouldn't be demanding more and more from others

Yeah, and even the ones without jobs should be paying, according to most conservatives, but let's give the rich guys another tax cut, certainly next year must be the year it will start trickling down - after all, how long has it been that you all have been waiting?

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." --Adlai Stevenson, Politician

Yeah, and even the ones without jobs should be paying, according to most conservatives, but let's give the rich guys another tax cut, certainly next year must be the year it will start trickling down - after all, how long has it been that you all have been waiting?

There are plenty of jobs to be had in the United States, and even the Mexicans know that. There are plenty of Blue Collar jobs available but too many young people are taking political science courses and the like rather than learning a trade like an electrician, carpenter or plumber. Those participating in the riots apparently don't get this.

And did you know you can by shares in many corporations? Perhaps you can be one of those rich guys too.

So the daughter of the farmer that received a share of the farm is a parasite if she doesn't work on the farm but lives on the farm's earnings. Got it. You should try to get under control your class envy, it will eat you alive.

You badly need to keep up. This incredibly stupid and asinine ENVY charge has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed so many times that the idea than any right wing apologist who still clings to the fiction is about as relevant as the hula hoop.

Think about it: there have always been rich and poor people in America, so if this is about jealousy, why the protests now? The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich – after keeping it strategically hidden for decades – is crazy. Where was all that class hatred in the Reagan years, when openly dumping on the poor became fashionable? Where was it in the last two decades, when unions disappeared and CEO pay relative to median incomes started to triple and quadruple? The answer is, it was never there. If anything, just the opposite has been true. Americans for the most part love the rich, even the obnoxious rich. And in recent years, the harder things got, the more we've obsessed over the wealth dream. As unemployment skyrocketed, people tuned in in droves to gawk at Evrémonde-heiresses like Paris Hilton, or watch bullies like Donald Trump fire people on TV.

Moreover, the worse the economy got, the more being a millionaire or a billionaire somehow became a qualification for high office, as people flocked to voting booths to support politicians with names like Bloomberg and Rockefeller and Corzine, names that to voters symbolized success and expertise at a time when few people seemed to have answers. At last count, there were 245 millionaires in congress, including 66 in the Senate. And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners. But that's just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they're cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more. In this country, we cheer for people who hit their own home runs – not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon. That's why it's so obnoxious when people say the protesters are just sore losers who are jealous of these smart guys in suits who beat them at the game of life. This isn't disappointment at having lost. It's anger because those other guys didn't really win. And people now want the score overturned.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

The premise of your argument (the bold) is based on a heroic assumption that any new revenues will go directly to spending for new programs; your speculation is simply biased and fails to take the macroeconomic perspective into consideration.

We do know that short term growth outlooks are sluggish at best, and that current revenue as a % of GDP is near its historic low. Cutting spending during this stage of the game will surely lead to a severe loss of GDP thereby exacerbating the deficit/debt. Whether you like it or not, taxes will need to be increased AND spending will need to be decreased (but only when the private sector is capable of driving growth). By all indications e.g. financial position of corporate America and the current rate of unemployment, now is not the time....

This is a terrible inversion of logic. The private sector has growth issues because of government intrusion and taxation. The new healthcare law is a part of that as well. Companies dont want to hire because the cost per employee is about to double, especially on the lower end of the labor market. Many companies are in a hiring freeze right now, and are learning more efficient methods on labor rather than just hiring. Not saying its all good, as some employees are worked to the bone and getting little out of it.

This situation puts us in a downward spiral. We need market stability and lowered regulation especially on small business that create most of the jobs in the US. Employers can afford to be extremely choosy right now, and outright not hire while having increased profits, small businesses especially are going on lean labor budgets and making due with as little as possible. This is especially true when the forecast doesnt call for anything other than small growth. Why hire when its both going to cost you, and it doesnt look neccessary?

Government on the other hand has been expanding by 4% to 15% for the last 30 years, economic growth or not. Its got to stop and needs to actually be cut.

The private sector has growth issues because of government intrusion and taxation.

Effective taxation in the United States is what, 26%?

The new healthcare law is a part of that as well. Companies dont want to hire because the cost per employee is about to double, especially on the lower end of the labor market.

The lower end (i am assuming you are referring to the low skill demographic) is not a driving force behind economic growth in the United States. Yes, we have a heavy reliance on low skilled labor within our borders, but that does not something to brag about.

We need market stability and lowered regulation especially on small business that create most of the jobs in the US.

Such as? You have mentioned the health care reform.

Employers can afford to be extremely choosy right now, and outright not hire while having increased profits, small businesses especially are going on lean labor budgets and making due with as little as possible. This is especially true when the forecast doesnt call for anything other than small growth. Why hire when its both going to cost you, and it doesnt look neccessary?

Which is a pretty good argument for engaging in another round of fiscal stimulus; the private sector is incapable of driving growth required to keep up with the population at this point in time (you would think this would be obvious).

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

You badly need to keep up. This incredibly stupid and asinine ENVY charge has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed so many times that the idea than any right wing apologist who still clings to the fiction is about as relevant as the hula hoop.